The World in Chains | Page 5

fact
that Viscount Grey was educated at Harrow, or that peace could have
been preserved with Germany if only Sir Edward Goschen had begun
life as a coal heaver, or had at least been elected by the National Union
of Boilermakers. Their panacea they vaguely call the democratic
control of Foreign Affairs, though it is not clear why we should expect
twenty million still ignorant voters to be more enlightened than one
educated representative who is, as a matter of fact, usually so much
oppressed by a due sense of his responsibility that he is in danger of
bungling only from excessive timidity. The experience of the Law
Courts shows that twelve men, be they never so good and true, cannot
at present be trusted to weigh and discriminate as nicely as one[6]; and
the fact that the Daily Mail has the largest circulation of any morning
paper is a sufficient mark of the present capacity and inclination of the
majority to control public affairs more directly than they do. It is said
that the secrecy of diplomatic affairs breeds an atmosphere of suspicion;
and it might be said with equal truth that all secrecy of every kind is
always and everywhere the most unnecessary thing in the world.[7] But
the fundamental fallacy of all these arguments is that they treat
diplomacy as an essential of international relations, whereas it is only
an accident, a trapping, a convenience, or a common form. Its defects

are the result and the reflection of national opinion. Diplomatists are no
more responsible for the defects of international relationship than
seconds are responsible for the practice of duelling: and we may note
incidentally that duels are if anything more frequent when the place of
the seconds in estimating their necessity is taken by a democratic court
of honour.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 6: The duties of a jury are, of course, very carefully limited
by law. But even in this reduced sphere they are remarkable chiefly for
their incompetence, prejudice, inattention, and stupidity. See
particularly André Gide's Souvenirs de la Cour d'Assises, all the
implied criticisms in which apply, mutatis quibusdam mutandis, with
equal force to English and indeed to all juries.]
[Footnote 7: It is possible to argue, though of course impossible to
prove, that if every diplomatic document of recent years had been
immediately made public, the relations between the Powers would have
remained very much what they are with "secret diplomacy"; that
"public diplomacy" would if anything have intensified the existing
jealousy and distrust. As a matter of fact anyone who takes the trouble
can approximately discover the diplomatic situation existing at a
particular moment between any two Powers, even if he cannot know
the verbal text of a particular treaty. And if the supporters of "public
diplomacy" reasonably point out that "publicity" is desired only as a
means to ensure the democratic control of Foreign policy, the answer is
that the only way to ensure the democratic control of diplomats or any
other public servants is to educate the people.]
§ 10
A Note on Democracy
The outcry for "democratic" control demands, I think, a note, if not a
volume,[8] on the limitations of democracy. We are all, I suppose,
agreed nowadays that the government of the future must be democratic,
in the sense that every adult has a right to full citizenship, and every

citizen can claim a vote. But it is obviously impossible for a modern
State to be governed directly by the voices of say fifty or a hundred
million citizens: there must always be a small legislative and a still
smaller executive body; and these bodies should obviously be
composed of the finest and most capable citizens. If then Aristocracy
means, as it does mean, a government of the whole by the best
elements, it follows that we are all equally agreed that the government
of the future must be aristocratic. The solution of this antinomy is of
course that democracy is not an end in itself, but only a means for the
selection and sanction of aristocracy.[9] The best elements in the
population can only come to the top if every man has an opportunity of
using his voice and his intelligence. We may note in passing that a
common objection, raised by writers like Emile Faguet, to the effect
that democracy puts a premium on incompetence by choosing its
officials almost fortuitously from the mob, is the exact opposite of the
truth. It is our present regime that leaves the selection of our rulers to
the chances of birth or wealth or forensic success. Real democracy will
stimulate the selection of the best, just as trade union standardisation of
wages encourages the employment of the better workmen.[10]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 8: Such a volume or something very much like it